Other meta-analysis sites

Cochrane
Collaboration
The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit
organization, providing up-to-date information about the effects of
health care. The organization's principal output is The Cochrane
Library. This includes the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
a regularly updated database of thousands of Cochrane reviews on the
effects of healthcare interventions, on the accuracy of diagnostic
tests and on the methodology of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Campbell
Collaboration (C2)
The international Campbell Collaboration (C2) is a non-profit organization
that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about the
effects of interventions in the social, behavioral and educational arenas. The organization holds an annual conference.

Hunter-Schmidt Meta-Analysis
This site offers information about the meta-analysis program developed by Hunter and Schmidt. It follows the Hunter-Schmidt approach to meta-analysis, with emphasis on artifact corrections.

Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal aims to publish high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modeling. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.

Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying systematic research synthesis.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
There is an ever-growing evidence base relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health care interventions, but for clinicians and decision-makers this literature can be difficult and time consuming to identify and appraise. Funded by NIHR, the CRD databases are providing the solution.

“I've been using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) for about five years now and have found it to be the most user-friendly program for conducting meta-analyses. CMA allows researchers to conduct meta-analyses on a wide array of data sets. Further, CMA includes an array of some of the most sophisticated publication bias analyses, allowing researchers to examine an issue that is too often overlooked in meta-analysis. I would highly recommend CMA to any researcher conducting meta-analyses.”

“I have the pleasure to use your software from 2004, and thanks to that, my group had the opportunity to explore many issues in clinical oncology. I am a doctor (not a statistician) and I have to say that the software is really simple (especially v. 2.0), fast-to-use, and really easy to understand for anyone who wants to use it. We currently prefer CMA 2.0 to other free software given the mentioned features. Actually, I have no drawbacks to stress, I am really friendly in using your software right now.”

Emilio Bria

“Given that publications report a wide range of values from analyses (e.g., means and standard deviations, r, F, t values, eta squared, partial eta squared, etc.), it can be extremely difficult to compute effect sizes that take each of these factors into consideration. This can make the process of a meta-analysis more time consuming that it necessarily has to be. I found one useful and time-saving aspect of Comprehensive Meta-Analysis is that it allowed me to enter effect size data from articles in a number of formats. Upon running the analysis, the programme would compute standardised effect sizes for each study (even though I might have used around 10 different types of data entry), as well as an overall effect size. Furthermore, even though I had over 50 moderators to assess, CMA made it simple to test each moderator, whilst offering the option to test moderators according to other specific study characteristics. This meant I could delve deeper into my data to see what was really going on. For these more sophisticated methods, the programme also reports the information required to compute additional statistics, such as tau squared within and between studies (enabling me to compute the R squared statistic), which are not provided by some other programmes but are commonly reported in published meta-analyses.”